PEJU ALIAS HRUDANANDA BEHERA Vs. TATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard argument from both the parties. The judgment is as follows:- Karuna Behera is the deceased. He had a quarrel with the accused-appellant in the matter relating to 'Dandanata' resulting in institution of a criminal case against the accused. Hara Behera, the foster father of the accused, wanted to settlement outside the Court and in presence of the accused and Pahali (P.W. 11) requested the deceased to withdraw the criminal case against the accused. That incident took place at about evening time in front of the hosue of Hara Behera. Deceased did not oblige to that request and made statement in furtherance thereof. At that, accused reacted sharply and threatened to do away with the deceased. Thereafter, deceased went to his thrashing floor. His wife (P.W. 6) brought food for his supper. Sitting by the side of a small fireplace, because of the cold climate, the deceased started taking food. P.W. 6 also remained present at that spot. Pahali (P.W. 11) had his thrashing floor adjoining to that of the deceased. He was also present in his thrashing floor and was taking food. Accused arrived there at about 8 p.m. and attacked and injured the deceased by means of katari (M.O. IV). Receiving several blows and sustaining bleeding injuries on the neck region, chest and back and the hands, he died at the spot. Accused, after committing the crime fled away with the weapon offence. But after his arrest, on police query, gave recovery of the weapon of offence from a well. In that context, on police requisition, the fire brigade people came and drained out the water from the well and thereafter a fireman (P.W. 8) brought out the katari from inside the well. That katari was sent to the doctor (P.W. 12), who conducted the post-mortem examination to give his opinion. Soon after the occurrence, hearing the shout of P.W.6, the neighbours and the villagers gathered there and thereafter police was informed and routine investigation was undertaken. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused for the offence under section 302, I.P.C.

(2.) Accused denied to the charge and claimed for trial. But he did not adduce any defence evidence.

(3.) To substantiate the charge, prosecution relied on the evidence of thirteen witnesses and series of documents, besides the material objects. The relevant evidence shall be taken note of at appropriate places of this judgment.